12 Md. App. 144 - Hazell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 289 - People v. Taylor (1979), 76 Wis. 2d 286 - In INTEREST OF DH v. State (1977)
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gault · Kent v. United States · Scott v. State · Kemplen v. Maryland
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under Maryland Rule 908 e a Juvenile Master may be assigned by the court to hear cases involving waivers of juvenile jurisdiction. The Master is required at the conclusion of the hearing to ‘announce his findings and recommendations,’ which are thereafter transmitted to the court. The court may, in the absence of exceptions taken by either party, confirm or modify the Master’s recommendations or remand for further proceedings. Where exceptions are filed to the Master’s recommendations, as permitted by Rule 908 e 3, the matter is set for hearing before the court, at which time ‘the judge shall hear the entire matter or such specific matters as set forth in the exceptions de novo.’ ”,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““We find no merit in appellant’s contention that it was improper for the court to hear the testimony of one of the victims when conducting a hearing on the exceptions of the State to the Master’s recommendations. We think Maryland Rule 908 e 3, heretofore set forth, permits the court to hear such testimony if it chooses. Moreover, appellant made no objection to it and was himself permitted at the hearing to adduce additional testimony in his own behalf.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Of course, not all of the relevant factors under Section 70 — 16 need be resolved against the juvenile to justify the waiver of jurisdiction. Nor is there any utility in requiring the court to make an arithmetic-type calculation as to the weight given by it to each factor.” Hazell v. State (1971), 12 Md. App. 144, 155 , 277 A.2d 639, 645 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.